⚫ Crev. Dear Sir, compose yourself, and hope human nature can. not be fo depraved; it wrings my heart to fee you in this distress. But who is this villain?

• Col. His name is Wilkins. When I committed my child to his care he lived at Henly; he pretends he loft him at twelve years old; and, O! agony to think! if he indeed be living, he is at this moment a wandering outcast and a beggar.

Crev. Merciful heaven! What do I hear? Can it be poffible! Shall I, in my loved and honoured patron, find a fond and living father? Sir, did that man lose a fon of your's at twelve years of age?

Col. Yes, Crevelt; I have no fon but you now.

Crev. I am your fon, Sir--your happy fon; that fon you loft.
Col. You! you, Crevelt!

Crev. Yes, Sir; the veteran, whofe name I bear, took me with him at the age you mention from Henly, where I lived with the man you have juft named, whom I always thought my father; it was the pride of poor Crevelt's heart to have me believed his fon; I bore his name, and publicly acknowledged him as my father; for you, Sir, could not have loved me better; his dying request to me was, ftill to retain the name of Crevelt, and never forget the man who made me a foldier.

Col. My fon! my fon! The hand of Providence has furely directed every circumftance of your life; you were brought to me a ftranger and a child; I became your parent by refiftless inftinct; in battle once I owed my life to you, and now a fecond time you fave it.

Char. O, Harriet! There is a chord of delight in my heart never touched before; and fure he who made that heart, now moves its fprings to ecflafy by the finger of an angel.

Col. He talked of your taking with you a picture of your mother had you ever any fuch thing?

• Crev. I have it ftill, Sir, and ever wore it next my heart: (Producing the picture from his bofom) You fee the frame is fhattered; it was by a mufquet ball the day every body thought I was killed. • Col. It is indeed your mother; and fee here those specks under the eye; are they my child's blood, or the tears of a fond parent? (Johnfon to Caleb without.) You must not come in; I have already explained every thing fufficiently.

me?

Enter Caleb (very abruptly) and Johnfon.

Caleb. I tell you I will come in: zounds! will nobody father

• Col. Young man, you have been deceived; you are Wilkins's fon, not mine.

Caleb. Pho, pho! Father, do you think I know no better? Johns. If you don't come out this moment, and no longer difturb my mafter, I'll take you by the fhoulder.

• Caleb. Why here's a fellow for you-forgets he is talking to a captain!

7

• Col.

Col. That is a rank you are fo utterly unfit for, that it would only expofe you to unhappinefs and ridicule; therefore your com miffion thall be fold; and, for being one day my fon, the purchafe money fhall be appropriated to fetting you up in bufinefs.

6

Johnf. Well, what keeps you now?..

Caleb. You are in a devil of a hurry, Mr. Johnson: I find I muft put up with old Jacob again; but let me ask you one question, An't I to be entitled to half-p -pay for my fervices?

Johnf. You fhall have full pay if you don't go about your bufinefs. [Shakes his cane at him]

Caleb. Well, if I can't be a half pay captain I'll be a no pay captain-for once a captain and always a captain. [Exit Caleb. Sir Oliver. Captain Crevelt-Í beg your pardon, Captain Talbot; give me your hand; you want nothing now but a wife, and if my daughter Charlotte

Count. Eh bien! Monfieur Chevalier, you have forgot?

Sir Oliver. Why no, Count, I have not. forgot; but you muft know, whatever my refpect for you may be, there is not that man living whofe alliance I fo much defire as Colonel Talbot's; b.fides, I understand there is another branch of the family of my mind.

Count. Chevalier, I love and I refpect the English, and by gar me vil have a wife among you.

Mand. It is not in words to exprefs my pleasure to make a bofom friend, and find a near relation, in lefs time than others form a common acquaintance, overflows my heart with transport.

6

Lady Oldjt. I could with alfo to fhew this affecting difcovery touches me, if I was not apprehenfive, Sir Oliver, of your unfortunate fufpicious temper.

Sir Oliver. Captain Talbot, be fo good as to ftep this way.Do give my wife a kifs; I know, my dear, your lips itch for it; and, with all her faults, believe me she has a heart that beats in unison to the feelings of all prefent, and a tear for mifery and friendship.

• Cel. Tal. Mifs Oldstock, it is your father's with and mine to unite our families-no -now that I have a fon I can propofe to you, there is only your acceptance of him neceffary to make me happy.

Char. Why, Sir, if the gentleman has but courage to speak

for himfelf

• Sir Oliver. As I don't expect the pleasure of contradiction from either party on this occafion, I'll join their hands (joining their hands), without waiting for an anfwer-there-Colonel, you are now one of my family.

Col. Tal. That affurance, Sir Oliver, feals and completes my happiness-you, Mandeville, fhall fhare a portion of my fortune as at fon; and may happiness ftill wait on you and your lovely Harriet. And now (addreffing the audience), if this court martial, to whom we appeal, acquit us with honour, I fhall blefs the hour my boy faid, He would be a foldier.'

Although this drama cannot be claffed as a genteel comedy, it poffeffes no fmall fhare of theatrical merit. Wit is feldom attempted, elegant nature feldom exhibited; yet, from

well

well-chofen fituations and comic painting, the toute enfemble is interefting and agreeable. The prevailing fault of modern comedies is, that they are crowded with incidents, and too much calculated for ftage effect. When the intereft of fo many perfons is involved in one piece, and the scenes are perpetually fhifting, nothing takes a strong hold of the mind of the fpectator; and there is no room for that gradual developement of character, and fine difplay of paffion, which delights us.

The ftyle of this comedy is fometimes poetical and inflated, and sometimes below the ftrain of polite conversation.

ART. IV. A Sermon, preached before the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Abbey Church of Westminster, on Saturday, January 30, 1790, being the Anniversary of King Charles's Martyrdom. By fohn, Lord Bishop of Carlisle. 4to. 1s. Cadell. London, 1790.

IN this elegant little compofition his lordship, after hinting

at the various evidences, which are conftantly before us of a particular providence, reminds his audience of the folemn occafion of their affembling on that day. This gives him an opportunity of introducing a fhort hiftorical detail of the tranfactions of the period alluded to. After admitting, with much candour, that, in the beginning of his reign, Charles fhewed a difpofition to ftretch the royal authority beyond its due limits, he proceeds to trace the fteps by which the revolutionists of thofe days carried their oppofition much farther than at first intended, or than was confiftent with the intereft of the more moderate and honefter part of them. Some pertinent obfervations are added on the danger of innovations, and the advantages of fubmitting to a few inconveniences rather than run the hazard of untried experiments; and the whole concludes with the most forcible incentives to a virtuous life.

ART. V. Thoughts on the Difqualification of the eldest Sons of the Peers of Scotland to fit from that Country in Parliament. With Obfervations on the Civil Polity of the Kingdom. By Alexander, Lord Saltoun, Advocate and F.S.S. A. The Second Edition. 8vo. 5s. boards. Cadell. London, 1789.

LORD Saltoun, after making many pertinent obfervations on the conftitution of the Scottish parliament, and the origin of representation in that country, proceeds to inquire how far E e the ENG. REV. VOL. XV. JUNE 1790.

the natural rights of the eldest fons of peers were affected by the act which paffed in the year 1587, when the general attendance of the leffer barons was firft difpenfed with in the public conventions of the kingdom. Previously,' fays he,

To 1587, c. 114, when the reprefentation of the leffer baron's was established, the eldeft fons of peers could have fat in parliament, not as eldest fons of peers, but as tenentes in capite of the crown; provided they were in poffeffion of eftates held independent of their fathers or other intermediate fuperiors. Nor is there a fingle act of the Scottish parliament by which, when qualified ac cording to the reprefentation eftablished by thofe acts above mentioned, they are excluded from the right of fitting in parliament. In what fituation then are they placed and to what clafs of citizens do they belong? Are they comprehended in the rank of prelates and lords of parliament? All other barons and freeholders are appointed to attend in future by reprefentation. Did the obligation, then, of their perfonal attendance remain? And, after that period, were they entitled, with their fathers, to an hereditary feat? Yet they are held to be difqualified from electing, or being elected into parliament from Scotland."

Another act of parliament, viz. that of 1661, is afterwards the fubject of the noble lord's inveftigation. By this act a right of voting at the elections of the commiffioners, or to be elected as fuch, was given to all freeholders of the king to a certain extent, excepting always from the act, all noblemen and their vaffals.

His lordship obferves it is impoffible to reduce the eldest fons of the great barons, in all fituations, within the meaning and the reach of this claufe of difqualification, by any fair conftruction. By the term noblemen, in the act above referred to, is clearly understood the great barons or peers who fat in parliament in their own right, who had not been difqualified from voting at elections by the former acts of the legiflature, appointing the representation of the leffer barons, and whofe privilege of voting in the election of commiffioners, fince they themfelves fat perfonally in parliament, it seemed proper to abolish. He farther obferves, that, when vaffals of the nobility, their fons were undoubtedly excepted; but the term noblemen, in the act abovementioned, did not include any fpecies of tenants in capite who did not fit perfonally in parliament, and among whom the fons of noblemen might juftly be comprehended. In fupport of this argument the noble and learned author thus proceeds:

The conftitution of Scotland had preferved, at least in criminal cafes, a trial by a jury of equals. If the eldeft fon of a peer of Scotland committed a crinie, however the courtesy of the kingdom

4

might have confidered him as noble, he would not now be tried by the peers; for they are not his pares curia: he would be tried by a jury of commoners, perhaps indifcriminately chofen. And he was not formerly, in the construction of jury in that country, to be confidered as among the pares curia of the peers in parliament, any more than of the leffer barons and freeholders. They fat mutually on each others juries; nor was the regulation, as in the trial of peers of parliament, that two-thirds of the jury fhould be peers, extended to their eldest fons. Why therefore extend that difqualifying expreffion of 1661, c. 35, to them? Nor is it fufficient to say that before the year 1587 they fat as proxies for their fathers. The rolls of the meeting of the eftates in 1560, and of previous parliaments, evidently fhew that they also fat in those meetings in the character of members, and as tenants in capite.'

By the acts of parliament which our author cites, it was provided that the expences of the parliamentary commiffioners from the fhires fhould be defrayed by the barons and freeholders reprefented; thofe only being excepted who held of noblemen and bishops, or lands belonging to boroughs royal in burgage. Lord Saltoun obferves, it may perhaps be faid that this exemption in favour of noblemen and their vaffals afforded fome colour of pretext for the exclufion of the eldeft fons of the great barons from parliament. But, if fo argued,' adds his lordfhip, when that obligation to defray the expences of the commiffioners ceafed, all fhadow of that reafon will fall to the ground. It is farther to be observed,' continues he, that la difqualification on the ground of exemption from the expences abovementioned, would have extended, by parity of reasoning, to their younger fons.'

Neither is that reafon of exclufion applicable to burghs royal for their eldest fons being once created burgeffes, and in poffeffion of property within the burgh, would, ipfo fatte, have become liable to their proportion of the burgh ftent (or tax) for defraying the expences of their parliamentary commiffioners.'

Lord Saltoun appears every where to have examined this subject in the cleareft light, and with the clofeft attention. He remarks, that in a very minute account of the parliament of Scotland, and its different form from that of England, given by Bishop Burnet, the very year when the act referred to was dated, in the Hiftory of his own Times, the incapacity of the eldest fons of peers to elect, or to be elected to parliament, is not fo much as mentioned, either exprefsly or by implication.

The noble author having fully evinced that the ineligibility to parliament of the eldeft fons of peers in Scotland refts on no difqualification by ftatute, obferves that the only foundation which fupports it, is two refolutions of the Scottish parliament, E e 2

Our